1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to computerized multimedia systems, and more particularly to such systems for exploring and executing transactions.
2. Background of the Invention
The review and selection of art has been a “hit and miss” process for as long as art has been offered for sale. The aggregation of large quantities of art in the hands of individual art dealers or galleries was a first step towards placing a greater array of possibilities in front of a prospective buyer. However, since the artwork displayed or stored in a gallery represents only a minuscule fraction of the artwork available around the world, dealers normally use transparencies to create more opportunities to make a sale. Catalogues and the like provide still further methods for a dealer to show a client a more comprehensive selection of artwork. However, there is no method by which an art dealer can readily identify the specific features or elements a prospective customer seeks in artwork and then offer that customer artwork with those particular characteristics, unless the artwork is physically located in its gallery, or under its control. Thus, if the prospective customer is not satisfied with the artwork offered by that dealer from its own stock, the dealer is generally unable to make a sale.
If a customer is seeking a particular piece of artwork or works by a particular artist, a dealer may try to obtain such artwork from another dealer. However, there has been no method by which a dealer can readily identify inventory of artwork owned by other art dealers except through visits to such dealers, review of published catalogues, or referrals of other dealers who might be familiar with the particular piece of artwork or the works of an artist being sought. If such a dealer is identified, communication between the parties is generally by phone and mail and a photograph or transparency of the desired artwork is sent to the dealer who represents the prospective customer. The prospective customer may then be invited back to the gallery to examine the photograph or transparency and decide whether to proceed with the purchase.
These “systems” are grossly inefficient. There is no quick, systematic method for a dealer to identify the particular elements or features of artwork that a prospective customer may be seeking. Conversely, if a prospective customer desires specific artwork, or works of a specific artist, there is no system that allows the dealer to identify where such works can be found. If the dealer knows where to find such works, long periods of time may elapse communicating with the other dealer, waiting for the arrival of a transparency, and then reigniting the interest of the prospective customer. The present “systems” are equally inefficient for a dealer that wants to sell his own inventory of artwork. He must either wait for a prospective customer to walk into his gallery or send out expensive catalogues. A dealer has no other effective way to apprise other galleries of the artwork he has available to sell.
Another drawback to the present “systems” is the very high cost to dealers. A substantial investment in inventory, real estate (for physical space to display and store the artwork), insurance, handling, personnel, etc. must be incurred in maintaining an inventory of artwork.
Clearly, the current systems are both inefficient for the consumer, or purchaser of artwork, and the art dealer. Thus, the purchase of artwork is often a time consuming process, with the identification of a desired piece of artwork, more likely, the result of chance or serendipity.